I didn't volunteer that info but I address Skander's post on the subject. If you would like to bring up any additional SPECIFIC examples I would be happy to discuss those also. But if you entire contribution is to attack the poster then I will tire of this exercise and let it go.
Lurker, it is completely pointless to bring up SPECIFIC examples unless you address the discrepancies for BOTH teams in the SAME post. That is the issue I wish to address. Otherwise, you are just rattling off examples that start to appear rather unobjective. This is also a good reason to avoid mentioning specific plays, because it would require analyzing the entire game for that purpose alone and frankly, this series is boring enough without having to sit through these games twice.
The incomprehension came when you isolated one sentence...and failed to read the intention in my mind. Or see my facial expression and body language. You shouldn't read with your eyes closed. 
That does not address what you said at all, Lurker. Your "intent", apparently, was quite Freudian.
Really...Shaq just took it? I remember several times when Shaq would complain after losses that he took much more of a beating than he was allowed to dish out. I don't recall ever seeing Duncan comment in the press.
But during the game? How does Tim deal with it during the games? Does he compare with Shaq then? Talk about reading comprehension? Did you not know I meant how they acted during the games? Eyes wide what?
And my comment on the consistancy still stands...if what Duncan did on that play warrants a foul then why didn't Z or Varejao get called for the same contact on the other end? Because Z is a bigger star that Duncan?
Okay, please help me comprehend your personal intent here. Duncan has been abused by the refs in all three games so far. According to you, he apparently plays the center/forward position without ever fouling and the hardnosed refs have it "out" for his superstar butt while allowing his inept non-superstar opponents, Ilgauskas, and Varejao virtually a free rein to clobber Duncan with no fears of reprisals.
This has resulted in these stats for the three games:
Game 1, Duncan had 2 fouls called on him, while he went to the line twice; Igauskas had two fouls called on him and he never went to the foul line; Varejao had three fouls called on him and he had seven free throws.
Game 2, D had 4 fouls and 7 FT's; I had 3 fouls and zero FT's; V had 4 fouls and 7 FT's.
Game 3, D had 4 fouls and 2 FT's; I had 2 fouls and attempted one FT; V had 1 foul and zero FT's.
So, Duncan was apparently NOT fouling either Ilgauskas nor Varejao much in the last game, at least not in penalty or shooting situations.
From the games stats, it would appear much more likely that neither team's big people are getting much in the way of calls, and I did not even look at the Gooden/Marshall or the Oberto/Horry contributions to all this.
I don't know, what exacly are you trying to argue here about fairness again? Clearly I don't "comprehend" your arguement in favor of discrepancies against Duncan here.
Again, bring up specific plays. Let's discuss the officiating. Let's discuss the game.
It is this love affair you have with citing "specific plays" that is burying you under a S-load of data that is impossible to support unless every, single possession is analyzed objectively and from every angle. This is why is makes little sense, because by the end of the game, do individual plays have any bearing on how fair the game was called or its outcome? The Spurs won all three. Did the refereeing hinder SA from quadrupling the differential? Are you concerned with the betting line? What, exactly, is the big deal about one or two plays per game NOT going in the Spurs favor, and what is the point of citing them without also citing plays that DID go in their favor.
I mean, if you truly are interested in my understanding what your intent was in writing what you did, perhaps a few contrary examples on your part to begin with would have shaken things lose in my dense mind.
I did read it. I called for the Cavs to be called for the same pushing in the post as Duncan was called for. I called for consistancy in when an offensive player goes to the hole and initiates contact.
As for objectivity...bring me an example where the Spurs got a favorable call and the Cavs with a similar situation got a different call. We can discuss it. Objectivity does not mean that I have to provide the arguments for the other side.
No Cav player was called for an offensive foul in this game? LeBron certainly might argue about that. But how did the Cavs big men end up with any fouls on them, then? What is it I am missing from your "unbiased" and call for the same favorable calls on both sides arguement? Why are the statistician padding the box score with bogus fouls on Cavs players? Gooden did not garner six fouls last night? Maybe we should investigate that issue instead.
You see, Lurker, not to lecture you about how you should post, but if you ONLY bring up these so-called biased calls on specific plays, that all of your examples, just by coincidence, go against the Spurs and not the other way around, it just sounds like you are being....unobjective.
Am I not comprehending your intend again? Dang! My one flaw.
My take is that the officiating has been, IN GENERAL, very balanced.
That's a relief!!! For a second there, I thought it was me.
Also my take is that if the "majority of uncalled contact" were being generated by the team you are rooting for then you would call it solid aggressive basketball.
Spoken by a fan of the team that has Bruce "majority of uncalled contact' Bowen on it.
